ArticleThe CRISPR journal2018
Do CRISPR Germline Ethics Statements Cut It?
Article in The CRISPR journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What do people think about genetic engineering? A systematic review of questionnaire surveys before and after the introduction of CRISPR.Frontiers in genome editing · 2023Pooled it
- Attitudes of clinical geneticists and certified genetic counselors to genome editing and its clinical applications: A nation-wide questionnaire survey in Japan.Journal of human genetics · 2019Trial
- CRISPR-based gene therapy for huntington's disease: current advances and future prospects.Neurogenetics · 2025Review
- Nanotechnology and CRISPR/Cas-Mediated Gene Therapy Strategies: Potential Role for Treating Genetic Disorders.Molecular biotechnology · 2025Review
- New hope and promise with CRISPR-Cas9 technology for the treatment of HIV.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Review
- CRISPR-Cas9 Targeting PCSK9: A Promising Therapeutic Approach for Atherosclerosis.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2025Review
- Prenatal gene editing for neurodevelopmental diseases: Ethical considerations.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- Harnessing bacterial immunity: CRISPR-Cas system as a versatile tool in combating pathogens and revolutionizing medicine.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Governing with public engagement: an anticipatory approach to human genome editing.Science & public policy · 2024Article
- Human Heritable Genome Editing and its Governance: Views of Scientists and Governance Professionals.New genetics and society · 2024Article
- Researching the future: scenarios to explore the future of human genome editing.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Article
- Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Human genome editing in clinical applications: Japanese lay and expert attitudes.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Vulnerability and the Ethics of Human Germline Genome Editing.The CRISPR journal · 2022Article
- A review of COVID-19: Treatment strategies and CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology approaches to the coronavirus disease.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2022Review
- Addressing Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitment in Public Advocacy and Policy Making on CRISPR/Cas-Based Human Genome Editing.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Article
- From Genotype to Phenotype: Polygenic Prediction of Complex Human Traits.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- CRISPR for accelerating genetic gains in under-utilized crops of the drylands: Progress and prospects.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Genome Editing among Bioethics and Regulatory Practices.Biomolecules · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The extraordinary wave of genomic-engineering innovation, driven by CRISPR-Cas9, has sparked worldwide scientific and ethical uncertainty. Great concern has arisen across the globe about whether heritable genome editing should be permissible in humans-that is, whether it is morally acceptable to modify genomic material such that the "edit" is transferable to future generations. Here I examine 61 ethics statements released by the international community within the past 3 years about this controversial issue and consider the statements' overarching positions and limitations. Despite their inability to fully address all important considerations, many of the statements may advance debate and national and international law and public policy.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.